People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran

The People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran (PMOI), also known as Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), is the largest and most militant group opposed to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Its ideology is a blend of Marxism and Islamism. Masoud Rajavi is the leader of the PMOI, while his wife Maryam Rajavi is called "President Elect of the Iranian Resistance."

From 1981 the group supported Iraq in its eight-year war against Khomeini’s Iran. From 1986, it was headquartered in Iraq. The Iraqi regime allowed the PMOI to operate bases in Iraq until the US invasion of 2003, when it was disarmed by the US. The group continues to be supported by Israel [3] and Washington elements including the Central Intelligence Agency [4]. According to Scott Ritter in 2007

"The MEK also has the support of the state of Israel. It has the support of the powerful pro-Israeli lobby here in the United States. It has the support of many members of congress, whether they have arrived at their position independently or as a result of intensive lobbying. The MEK does have a base of support among the anti-Tehran groups in Washington."[5]

The Iran Policy Committee regards the PMOI as a major potential asset in its proposed policy of "destablization". It recommends delisting the PMOI as a terrorist organisation, getting the Iraqi government to officially recognise it, and returning its weapons.

According to Justin Raimondo, "The neocons are pushing the idea that we can use the MEK to overthrow the Iranian regime"; however, he adds that "It isn't just the neocons who have been giving them their support, inside government and out: the Feminist Majority Foundation is also on board, on account of the MEK's fervid feminism." [6]

Contents

Intiating nuclear inspections in Iran

"The MeK's biggest claim to fame has been its revelation in 2002 that Iran had a secret nuclear site at a place called Natanz. After the announcement, the International Atomic Energy Agency confronted Iran and Iran opened the site for inspection." [7]

David Albright from the Institute of Science and International Security said that he thinks that MEK's "real contribution was to start a chain of events where Iran had to admit that it had its secret gas centrifuge program and other secret nuclear programs, and help get the IAEA into Iran to start uncovering a whole set of misleading statements or hidden facilities in Iran. This building was sized to hold 1,000 centrifuges, but could actually hold more." [8]

Former Nuclear Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter stated in his 2006 book "Target Iran" that the true source of the nuclear information was Israel, and that Israeli intelligence chose to leak the information to the MEK to build up MEK's reputation as "an organization capable of getting quality information." [9]

Camp Ashraf controversy

An investigative report by a delegation of the European Interparliamentary Group, Friends of a Free Iran, following its visit to Camp Ashraf in Iraq in summer of 2005, notes that:

"On 18 May 2005, the US based Human Rights Watch issued a 28-page report entitled ‘No Exit: Human Rights Abuses Inside the MKO Camps’. The Report makes a series of serious allegations against Iran’s main opposition movement, the People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran. This includes allegedly subjecting “…dissident members to torture and prolonged solitary confinement” as well as alleging “…two cases of death under interrogation”. ...

"Upon closer scrutiny of the report, dozens of political, legal and human rights figures and organisations expressed concern about what they described as the flawed methodology used by Human Writes Watch in the preparation of the report, which according to them, made the findings of the report unsafe. Further concerns were raised about the unexpectedly political nature of the report, and in particular its de facto political recommendation against removing the People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran from terrorist lists.

"Friends of a Free Iran, wrote to Human Rights Watch a number of times, raising concerns about the methodology employed in preparing the report, as well as requesting clarification on some of the specific alleged incidents of rights abuses. Friends of a Free Iran did not receive a response and thus decided to conduct its own investigation. It also learned that Human Rights Watch did not respond to others, including Lord Avebury who repeatedly requested a written response from the organisation, to no avail. ...

"Friends of a Free Iran’s research, revealed the People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran have for many years, been the subject of an extensive misinformation campaign orchestrated by the Iranian regime. The delegation came across several cases of alleged human rights violations by the People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran, which were later proved to be false.

"Finally, Friends of a Free Iran believes there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the Human Rights Watch report was politically motivated. Far beyond the mandate of a human rights organisation, and in tandem appeasement advocates, Human Rights Watch lashed out at Iran's main opposition, tacitly recommending that the group should not be removed from the terrorist list.

Lastly "Friends of a Free Iran disagrees with the Human Rights Watch recommendation and believes the People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran must be removed from the terror list." [10]